State v. Cumbie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 76 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To avoid interruption in the continuity of the closing argument and more particularly to afford defendant an opportunity to evaluate the prejudicial nature of the objectionable comments in the context of the total closing argument, we do not impose a strict rule requiring that a motion for mistrial be made in the next breath following the objection to the remark. Here, Cumbie objected to the prosecutor's comment, and the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard this remark. If Cumbie felt that the judge's admonition was inadequate, he should have informed the judge of this fact at the time of his objection or, at the latest, at the end of the prosecutor's closing argument. The judge then may have been able to give additional curative instructions which may have remedied Cumbie's objection. The motion for mistrial in the present case, made after jury instructions and retirement of the jury for deliberation, however, came too late to preserve Cumbie's objection for appeal. (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 466 So. 2d 293 - Jones v. State

2. “[wjhen there is an improper comment, the defendant, if he is offended has the obligation to object and to request a mistrial. . . . If the defendant fails to object or if, after having objected, he does not ask for a mistrial, his silence will be considered an implied waiver. Id. (Emphasis added). The Clark court further stated that if a defendant does not move for mistrial at the time the improper comment was made then the defendant will not be allowed to await the outcome of the trial and raise his objection on appeal of an unfavorable verdict. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. State

3. “which can be considered on appeal without objection in the lower court, is error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action. Clark at 333 . When does prosecutorial misconduct amount to fundamental error and thus become an exception to the contemporaneous objection and motion for mistrial rule? When the prosecutorial argument taken as a whole is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 457 So. 2d 1084 - Ryan v. State